1,720,958 research outputs found
Inter-rater reliability of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale as a diagnostic and outcome measure of depression in primary care
No full textBackgroundThe inter-rater reliability of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) has not been examined in primary care settings with a view to using it as both a primary outcome measure and for determining entry into a trial.MethodsA semi-structured interview for the HDRS with detailed questions and scoring rules was developed for use by lay interviewers. Interviews with patients with a range of scores on the HDRS were conducted by one interviewer, audiotaped and rated by a second interviewer. 84 ratings were made by 4 raters on 42 primary care patients over 4 sessions, giving comparisons for 10 rater pairs.ResultsThe intraclass coefficient and concordance coefficient for the total HDRS score were both 0.95, with a 95% reference interval for the difference (between any pair of raters) in total HDRS score of ? 3.31 to 3.69; measurement error in an individual total score was 1.25. Inter-rater reliability did not vary with severity of depression and there was no evidence of bias in rating in any rater compared to the others. Weighted kappa coefficients for individual items were close to 0.6 (good) or above for all items except hypochondriasis and insight.LimitationsThe inter-rater reliability of the retardation and agitation items was not assessed.ConclusionsIn primary care, the 17-item HDRS delivered using a standardised interview has high overall inter-rater reliability as a primary outcome measure but a few patients may be erroneously excluded if it is used to determine study entry
Protocol for the THREAD (THREshold for AntiDepressants) study: a randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of antidepressants plus supportive care, versus supportive care alone, for mild to moderate depression in UK general practice
No full textBackground: Depression guidelines in the UK recommended a policy of watchful waiting for mild depression due to a lack of evidence for the effectiveness of antidepressant treatment for mild cases. However there has been relatively little research carried out in primary care to help establish the severity threshold at which antidepressant treatment is effective and cost-effective.Methods/Design: The THREAD (THREshold for AntiDepressants) study is a multi-centre randomised controlled trial designed to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) plus general practitioner (GP) supportive care, versus supportive care alone, for mild to moderate depression in primary care. The aim is to recruit 300 patients from three centres (Southampton, London and Liverpool). Depressive symptoms will be assessed at baseline, 12 weeks and 26 weeks, using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS). Two severity sub-groups of patients will be recruited, with HDRS scores of 12–15, and 16–19. Possible predictors of response will be explored including life events and difficulties and alcohol consumption. Analysis of covariance, controlling for baseline value, severity group and centre will be used to estimate the overall treatment effectiveness (difference in HDRS score) at final follow up. The primary analysis will be by 'intention to treat' using double sided tests. The interaction between severity sub-group and treatment will be tested, and if appropriate, effects within separate severity sub-groups estimated. The economic analysis will compare the two treatment groups in terms of mean costs and cost effectiveness.Discussion: The results of this study will give GPs important information to help them determine the severity of depression at which antidepressant treatment is likely to be cost-effective
Comparison of general practitioner records and patient self-report questionnaires for estimation of costs
No full textThis study compared resource use data and estimated costs over a 12-month period, based on patient self-report questionnaires and general practitioner records. The level of agreement was measured by weighted . Differences in total costs were plotted against mean total costs. Of 324 patients with complete GP records for the period only 85 (26.2%) had complete self-report data. The recorded number of contacts per patient was higher for patient questionnaires than GP records (17.20 vs. 12.64), and the level of agreement between the two sources was moderate (w=0.465). The plots of differences in total costs showed a slight downward bias, suggesting that estimation of total cost from GP records is lower than patient questionnaires. The incompleteness of patient questionnaires forces reliance on GP records as the main source of information for economic evaluations
Randomised controlled trial to assess the health economics of antidepressants in primary care (The AHEAD Study)
No full text
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Get PDFWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
- …
